Jodie Buckless v FluidDrive Pty Ltd

[2025] FWC 2250

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Jodie Buckless
v

FluidDrive Pty Ltd

(U2025/11334)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT O'NEILL

MELBOURNE, 1 AUGUST 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – unpaid application fee – application is not made in accordance with this Act – application dismissed – s.587(1)(a).

On 8 July 2025 Ms Jodie Buckless made an unfair dismissal application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that Ms Buckless’ application has not been made in accordance with the Act and that it is appropriate to dismiss the application.

Ms Buckless’ application was incomplete because she did not pay the required fee[1] or file a completed request to waive the fee.

Commission staff attempted to contact Ms Buckless on 17 and 21 July 2025, by email and text message. On 25 July 2025, the Commission called Ms Buckless and left a voicemail with a final reminder. She was advised that if no response was received, her application may be dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act because it has not been made in accordance with the Act. No response has been received, the fee has not been paid, and no waiver request has been received.

Ms Buckless has been given ample opportunity to rectify the deficiency in the application. She has not responded to multiple enquiries and warnings that his application may be dismissed. I am satisfied that Ms Buckless’s application should be dismissed. I make the following order:

1. The application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) made by Ms Jodie Buckless on 8 July 2025 is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

[1] Section 395 of the Act.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission heard an application for an unfair dismissal remedy made by Jodie Buckless against FluidDrive Pty Ltd. The application, lodged on 8 July 2025, pertained to issues surrounding Ms. Buckless' employment termination. However, the application was incomplete as Ms. Buckless failed to pay the requisite application fee or submit a completed request to waive the fee. The Commission took several steps to notify Ms. Buckless of the incomplete application, including email and text message reminders on 17 and 21 July 2025, followed by a voicemail on 25 July 2025, warning that her application might be dismissed if the fee was not paid or a waiver request submitted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Ms. Buckless' application complied with the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. Section 394 of the Act mandates that an application for unfair dismissal must be accompanied by the appropriate fee, unless a fee waiver is granted. The court had to determine if Ms. Buckless' failure to pay the fee or provide a waiver request constituted a non-compliance that warranted dismissal of the application under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

Deputy President O'Neill found that Ms. Buckless' application was indeed incomplete because she did not address the fee requirement. Despite multiple attempts to contact Ms. Buckless and warn her of the potential dismissal, she failed to respond or rectify the deficiency. The court concluded that ample opportunity had been given for Ms. Buckless to comply with the application requirements. Given her inaction, the application was dismissed under s.587(1)(a) of the Act.

The Fair Work Commission dismissed Ms. Buckless' application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The dismissal was based on her failure to pay the required application fee or submit a completed fee waiver request, in accordance with the Act. Consequently, the court made an order dismissing the application, effectively concluding the proceedings in this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established